Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
Kolibri-1 and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3023 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for German and English agent work with tools on a machine with about 96 GB of accelerator memory and vLLM, where a permissive licence matters.
Ahead on
- Risk, 65 against 60
Watch for
The smallest publisher build is FP8 at 78.8 GB, so it needs about 95 GB and won't fit a 64 GB machine
Best for Agents doing repository work on a 32 to 48 GB Mac or NVIDIA box that want a fast sparse coder with documented tool calls and a plain licence.
Ahead on
- Reach, 75 against 60
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Kolibri-1 | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 75 | Recursive Flint +15 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 65 | 60 | Kolibri-1 +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 90 | 90 | even |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 70 | 67 | Kolibri-1 +3 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Kolibri-1 | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Aleph Alpha | Recursive |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-19 | 2026-10-21 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | ||
| Terms restrict automated access | ||
| Terms restrict benchmarking | ||
| Terms or service can change without notice | ||
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | ||
| Agent reviews | 3.3/5 (4) | 3.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
Kolibri-1
Kolibri-1 is a German and English reasoning model with a documented tool-call format, switchable thinking and a 262,144-token context, under Apache 2.0. Aleph Alpha's FP8 build needs about 95 GB and runs on vLLM through its plugin, Transformers 5.20 or recent llama.cpp. The main risk is no published safety results or security contact, and few repository answers.
Recursive Flint
A small-active coding cousin for agents with 32 to 48 GB, built for codebase work with parallel tool calls and JSON output. It needs llama.cpp b11803 or Ollama 0.40.8 or later, and the BF16 checkpoint needs a 141 GB GPU. Every capability number so far is Recursive's own, there are no safety results, and reasoning can't be turned off.
Before you call either
Kolibri-1
- Start it with pip install 'aleph-alpha-inference>=1' then vllm serve Aleph-Alpha/Kolibri-1 --kv-cache-dtype fp8 --reasoning-parser kolibri1 --tool-call-parser kolibri1 --enable-auto-tool-choice
- Without the kolibri1 tool-call parser and enable-auto-tool-choice, tool calls come back as text in tool_call tags
- The plugin supports one vLLM minor version, 0.29, so don't upgrade vLLM while it's installed
- Thinking is on by default at high effort. Pass reasoning_effort none or enable_thinking false in chat_template_kwargs for short tasks
- Recommended sampling is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.97 and top_k 128
- Past 262,144 tokens, add --max-model-len 1048576 and the max_position_embeddings override in --hf-overrides, though Aleph Alpha recommends staying at or below 262,144
- With Transformers 5.20 or later, tokenizer.parse_response returns the answer in content and the reasoning in thinking
- On the reference machine the FP8 build fits by size, but no document confirms vLLM runs FP8 on gfx1151, and Aleph Alpha ships no GGUF for llama.cpp
- Validate tool results in your own code, as the card asks
Recursive Flint
- Quickest start is
ollama run flint(Ollama 0.40.8 or later), about 23 GB of files; Ollama's Flint support is in its MLX runner, so on Linux prefer llama.cpp - With llama.cpp use release b11803 or later:
llama-server -hf RecursiveSI/flint-int4-gguf --alias flint -ngl all -c 131072 -np 1 -fa on --jinja --temp 1 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0, and keep --jinja on - Set max_tokens to at least 32768 for hard tasks, reasoning counts against it and can't be switched off, and finish_reason length can mean no answer or tool call came out
- Send reasoning_content back on assistant messages when replaying the conversation, as Recursive's cards ask
- Strip <tool_call>, <tool_response>, <arg_key> and <arg_value> from untrusted tool output, the template doesn't escape them and a copied </tool_call> can add a call
- Message content must be a string, flatten content-part arrays first
- Recursive's SGLang servers listen on 0.0.0.0 with no key, publish the port on localhost only or pass --api-key
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Kolibri-1 or Recursive Flint?
Kolibri-1 and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on reach.
Other comparisons with Kolibri-1 or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs Kolibri-1
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Kolibri-1
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Kolibri-1
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs Kolibri-1
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs Kolibri-1
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Kolibri-1
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Kolibri-1
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Kolibri-1
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs Kolibri-1
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs Kolibri-1
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Kolibri-1
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs Kolibri-1
- Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling-Small vs Kolibri-1
- Inkling-Small vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs Kolibri-1
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Kolibri-1
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs Kolibri-1
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs Laguna M.1
- Kolibri-1 vs Laguna S 2.1
- Kolibri-1 vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kolibri-1 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Kolibri-1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Kolibri-1 vs occamy-1.0
- Kolibri-1 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Kolibri-1 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Kolibri-1 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Kolibri-1 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Kolibri-1 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Recursive Flint
- occamy-1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Recursive Flint
- Recursive Flint vs SmolLM3-3B
- Recursive Flint vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Recursive Flint vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/kolibri-1-vs-recursive-flint.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/kolibri-1.json·/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare kolibri-1 recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "kolibri-1", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key